UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PRIMITIVA JIMENEZ VERASTEGUI et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 18-2358 (TJK) KEVIN MCALEENAN et al., Defendants. ORDER Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking judicial review of the denial of their applications for adjustment of their immigration status. See ECF No. 1. On June 5, 2019, a week after Defendants’ answer was due, the Clerk of Court entered Defendants’ default at the request of Plaintiffs because Defendants had failed to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ complaint by the deadline set by the Court. See ECF No. 19. Two days later, Defendants moved to vacate the Clerk’s entry of default and dismiss the complaint. See ECF No. 20; ECF No. 21. A week later, Plaintiffs opposed the motion to vacate and moved for default judgment in a consolidated filing. See ECF No. 23. For the reasons explained below, Defendants’ motion to vacate is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment is therefore DENIED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, however, is DENIED without prejudice. * * * An entry of default may be set aside for “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). That determination is left to the discretion of the district court, but “[i]n exercising its discretion, the district court is supposed to consider ‘whether (1) the default was willful, (2) a set-aside would prejudice [the] plaintiff, and (3) the alleged defense [is] meritorious.’” Mohamad v. Rajoub, 634 F.3d 604, 606 (D.C. Cir. 2011), aff’d sub nom, Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 566 U.S. 449 (2012) (quoting Keegel v. Key W. & Caribbean Trading Co., 627 F.2d 372, 373 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). Nonetheless, “in this Circuit, ‘strong policies favor resolution of disputes on their merits.’” Republic of Kazakhstan v. Stati, 325 F.R.D. 507, 509 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). To begin with, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ motion to vacate should be denied on procedural grounds that largely relate to their motion to dismiss. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is defective because Defendants neglected to include a certified list of the contents of the administrative record as required by Local Civil Rule 7(n) and further because they did not seek leave of Court to file the motion. ECF No. 22-1 at 20–21. And without a procedurally proper response to the complaint on the docket, Plaintiffs insist, Defendants’ motion to vacate is deficient, because it was not “accompanied by a verified answer presenting a defense sufficient to bar the claim in whole or in part” as required by Local Civil Rule 7(g). ECF No. 22-1 at 20–21.1 Plaintiffs also allege the Defendants’ counsel did not meaningfully confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel before moving to vacate the entry of default as required by Local Civil Rule 7(m). But the Court, in its discretion, concludes that these alleged defects do not warrant denying Defendants’ motion to vacate. Plaintiffs are correct that Defendants did not seek leave to file their motion to dismiss out of time in accordance ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals